Baby killers cause Komen to cave

Composed of human material. Not necessarily a human being.

Again, because you are really slow and thick... No inorganic (non-living) thing, is capable of replicating itself. Therefore we KNOW that a fetus is simply not just "human material" but rather, a human organism. There is absolutely NO doubt about this, and it's not even questionable, unless you wish to question basic biology. Inorganic material is simply incapable of doing what a fetus does, and would not require "abortion" because there would be nothing to "abort" from, inorganic material is not in the process of living.
 
Again, because you are really slow and thick... No inorganic (non-living) thing, is capable of replicating itself. Therefore we KNOW that a fetus is simply not just "human material" but rather, a human organism. There is absolutely NO doubt about this, and it's not even questionable, unless you wish to question basic biology. Inorganic material is simply incapable of doing what a fetus does, and would not require "abortion" because there would be nothing to "abort" from, inorganic material is not in the process of living.

We do not know if they replicate correctly and logic dictates if 50% of them spontaneously abort the odds are some do not replicate correctly.

Sheesh. Talk about slow and thick. If 50% of anything else failed to function properly most intelligent folks would conclude there is a problem with the procedure.
 
We do not know if they replicate correctly and logic dictates if 50% of them spontaneously abort the odds are some do not replicate correctly.

Sheesh. Talk about slow and thick. If 50% of anything else failed to function properly most intelligent folks would conclude there is a problem with the procedure.

It doesn't matter if they replicate correctly, as long as they replicated at all, they met the requirement of an organism.
 
A Republican supermajority has muscled two anti-abortion bills through the Virginia House, including one declaring that the rights of persons apply from the moment sperm and egg unite.

Sen. Bill Stanley, R-Franklin County, won passage Tuesday of a measure that would permit wrongful death civil lawsuits against those who kill a fetus.

Del. Bob Marshall's House Bill 1 on personhood at conception passed on a 66-32 vote.

Marshall's bill for years had passed the conservative House only to bog down and die in a moderate Senate. This time, it stands to survive a Senate under new conservative control after last fall's election stripped the Democrats of power.



http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...ion/53097654/1
 
It doesn't matter if they replicate correctly, as long as they replicated at all, they met the requirement of an organism.

Replicate: to repeat, duplicate, or reproduce
Duplicate: 1. a copy exactly like an original. 2. anything corresponding in all respects to something else.

We do not know if a duplicate was made. If there were components missing or defective then a duplicate was not made even though there was a division and, again, with a 50% failure rate it's logical to conclude there were components missing.
 
I always get a chuckle out of these "we want to kill children" fanatics......they will accuse conservatives of hating science, but invariably demonstrate a total disregard of biology.......
 
Replicate: to repeat, duplicate, or reproduce
Duplicate: 1. a copy exactly like an original. 2. anything corresponding in all respects to something else.

We do not know if a duplicate was made. If there were components missing or defective then a duplicate was not made even though there was a division and, again, with a 50% failure rate it's logical to conclude there were components missing.

A "duplicate" doesn't have to be made, if the fertilization was successful, another cell was produced. It wasn't produced by the host human organism, it was produced by the fertilized cell, which means the fertilized cell, upon successful fertilization, becomes an independent living organism. It has met all the criteria it needs to meet, in reproducing just one cell, because this is something that inorganic material can't do, it's not biologically possible. It doesn't matter if successful fertilization happens 50% of the time or 2% of the time, once it occurs, an organism exists.
 
I always get a chuckle out of these "we want to kill children" fanatics......they will accuse conservatives of hating science, but invariably demonstrate a total disregard of biology.......

And I find it slightly amusing anti-abortionists will grab any straw and make up any nonsense to try and justify their position. There's everything from souls entering males before females to the outrageous idea the first movement of the fetus (quickening) is evidence of soul possession, as if likening it to the movement of people starting to occupy an upstairs, vacant apartment, to claiming DNA can determine what is a human being.

Let's talk biology. Take two handkerchiefs each containing a sample of DNA. Run the tests. Both tests will conclude the DNA is human material. Those tests can not determine a human being as one sample was taken from a cadaver and in order for something to be classified as a human being it must be able to carry on the processes of life. Needless to say, actually it is required to say, a cadaver does not carry on the processes of life.

Simply stated, DNA only verifies if it is human material. Material. Not a human being. So for one to say DNA proves something is a human being shows their lack of knowledge concerning DNA and those who continually repeat that after being shown it's not true calls into question their motivation in propagating what they now know is a lie.

What could be their motivation? Well, we know that in 1869 Pope Pius IX forbade all abortions in exchange for France’s Napoleon III acknowledging papal infallibility. France’s population had experienced a sharp decrease over the previous 60 years due, in part, to sending young men to the slaughter of war. It’s reasonable to conclude people thought twice about bearing children knowing the probable fate of their offspring. In any case the deal between Napoleon III and the Pope Pius IX was more like a deal made in Hell than an agreement made in “God’s House”.

We have seen how society protects the human beings that are here and the picture is anything but rosy. Hundreds of children die every day from starvation and disease, both which could be rectified if those who spent their energy trying to classify a clump of cells as a human being channelled their time and effort in a different direction.

Why don’t pro-life folks care about the lives of born children? That’s the 800 pound (Sterling) question. (964 Euro or $1253.00 US.) :)
 
Abortion is murder. Each abortion snuffs out an innocent human life. Tragically, doctors have deceived the American public. Referring to unborn babies as "fetus," "embryo," or "zygote," may be scientifically correct, but does not change the fact: These little ones are little human beings. Though called "parasite," "blob," or "tissue," give each wee creature about 266 days after conception and see what emerges from his mother's womb. It will be a human baby, not a zebra, a trout, frog or an orangutan.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils in America/Abortion is Murder/physician_explains.htm
 
A "duplicate" doesn't have to be made, if the fertilization was successful, another cell was produced. It wasn't produced by the host human organism, it was produced by the fertilized cell, which means the fertilized cell, upon successful fertilization, becomes an independent living organism. It has met all the criteria it needs to meet, in reproducing just one cell, because this is something that inorganic material can't do, it's not biologically possible. It doesn't matter if successful fertilization happens 50% of the time or 2% of the time, once it occurs, an organism exists.

An organism has to be able to carry on the processes of life. We do not know if the reproduction resulted in something that could carry on the processes of life and, again, knowing 50% don't carry on the processes of life it's logical to conclude some, if not all of them, were faulty. Faulty to the degree they could not carry on the processes of life. Faulty to the degree they could not be considered organisms.
 
“Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.” —Jeremiah 1:5
 
In msg #281 you wrote, “What you continue to ignore is that your very own site said that those 50% that spontaneously abort do so for reasons other than genetic defects.”

Now you write (Msg #286), “YOUR OWN FUCKING LINK STATED THAT THE MAJORITY DO NOT SPONTANEOUSLY ABORT DUE TO THE GENES.”

So, stop pulling a Repub and state either one or the other because msg #281 implies ALL the 50% that spontaneously abort due so due to reasons other than genetic defects while msg #286 states “THE MAJORITY DO NOT SPONTANEOUSLY ABORT DUE TO THE GENES.” So, is it ALL or is it “THE MAJORITY” because if it’s the majority and not ALL then that means SOME of the fertilized cells do not contain the necessary components to carry on the processes of life.

You keep pretending that something dying means it never was alive. That is complete bullshit. As stated, AND IGNORED BY YOU, by your definition NOTHING could ever have the components to carry on the process of life. Because by your definition, the death of the organism means it didn't contain 'the necessary components to carry on the processes of life'. You fucking moron.

So stop this bullshit of offering misleading, ambiguous crap.

Ambiguous? You mean like saying something doesn't 'have the necessary components for life' yet FAILING to provide ANY evidence of such? You mean something like that? What 'components' are missing?

YOUR OWN SITE stated the main reasons for spontaneous abortions. But you ignore that because it doesn't fit into your little dehumanization fairy tale.

As for being able to determine where a cell originated you are correct, however, that has nothing to do with this discussion. The point I wanted to make is DNA does not determine what is and what isn't a human being. If it determines what a liver cell is, fine. It's a liver cell and a liver is not a human being. If DNA determines a cell is a kidney cell, fine. A kidney is not a human being. As I stated from the very beginning DNA can only determine human material. It can not determine what is a human being.

Funny how you didn't continue on with your little line above... because had you continued to the fertilized egg cell... what would DNA have told us? You fucking moron.

When a DNA profile is requested a sample may be taken from inside the mouth, a blood draw, a skin cell, etc. Basic common sense should tell you if a DNA profile can be produced from any of those samples and all results are equally valid and knowing saliva and blood and a skin cell are not human beings then DNA can not determine what is a human being. It can only determine what is human material.

ROFLMAO... wow... just wow. Read what you wrote above and stop and THINK about it for a minute. It is so unbelievably retarded, it makes me think you are Cypress or Bfgrn.

So, stop pulling a Repub by veering off track by trying to pull the conversation all over hell and produce something concrete. It doesn't make a damn bit of difference if DNA can determine a liver cell or a kidney cell. It doesn't make a damn bit of difference if the majority of fertilized cells abort due to reasons other than defects. The point is there are some fertilized cells so damaged they can not carry on the processes of life which means they are not organisms which means they are not human beings which means all fertilized cells are not the start of a human being's life which means the anti-abortionist argument is null and void.

Again, you are just making shit up. You continue to walk closer and closer to the truth, but upon seeing reality, you pull back into your nonsense. It DOES matter that DNA can tell us that a fertilized egg cell is human. It does matter that most spontaneous abortions are not due to genetics (which was your original claim). Saying that because it died means it didn't have these mysterious 'components' you keep mentioning organisms 'must have to carry on the processes of life'.

Your entire argument has been debunked time and again. But because you want to dehumanize the child, you will continue to refuse to see the truth.

The anti-abortionist argument that all fertilized cells are human beings is not true and that's the foundation of their argument. They have no proof and if you took the time to educate yourself and check other web sites you'll see there is no proof of such an absurd idea.

and AGAIN, you are wrong. DNA dictates that they are all human beings. Some of these human beings are going to die before implantation. Some will die during the pregnancy. Some will die as infants. Some will die as toddlers, some as teens, some as young adults, some as senior citizens. The fact that they do not all live the same period of time doesn't magically take away their humanity.

I can't help but also point out that you have offered NO proof or evidence AT ALL to back up your claims that they aren't human. You simply stomp your feet, shout 'they died, thus they can't be human' and act as if that is evidence. Fucking moron.
 
Abortion is murder. Each abortion snuffs out an innocent human life. Tragically, doctors have deceived the American public. Referring to unborn babies as "fetus," "embryo," or "zygote," may be scientifically correct, but does not change the fact: These little ones are little human beings. Though called "parasite," "blob," or "tissue," give each wee creature about 266 days after conception and see what emerges from his mother's womb. It will be a human baby, not a zebra, a trout, frog or an orangutan.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils in America/Abortion is Murder/physician_explains.htm

Exactly, AFTER 266 days.

Pregnancy is a process. Everything in this world takes time. We would never refer to anything that may occur/develop in the future as having occurred and that's where anti-abortionists go off track. We don't refer to kindergarten kids as doctors even though some may very well become doctors. It takes time for a baby/human being to become a baby/human being.
 
Back
Top